If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Feinsteins AWB proposal

Here's a link to what Feinstein is proposing. Let's hope this doesn't get passed. It includes a grandfathering clause but only with NFA registration. Who wants to register not only their firearms but their magazines as well? Not this guy...

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

notice how it says weapons that are grandfathered must be approved by local authorities to comply with state and local laws? that part right there basically allows anything that could potentially be grandfathered be genuinely illegal no matter what, prone to confiscation by local authorities.
especially considering it means that a local authority would have to personally inspect the weapon to deem it legal. I'd bet money the majority of legal guns that get inspected for this get immediately confiscated on the spot of inspection, and incorrectly deemed illegal, and nothing the owner can do about it

notice how it says weapons that are grandfathered must be approved by local authorities to comply with state and local laws? that part right there basically allows anything that could potentially be grandfathered be genuinely illegal no matter what, prone to confiscation by local authorities.
especially considering it means that a local authority would have to personally inspect the weapon to deem it legal. I'd bet money the majority of legal guns that get inspected for this get immediately confiscated on the spot of inspection, and incorrectly deemed illegal, and nothing the owner can do about it

Well, if they took their guns in for registration, they didn't deserve them in the first place!

Like Scott and Zach, I wont be registering anything either if this bill were to pass, with all the people that constantly lament the guns they lost to tragic boating accidents, I don't think many here would either. What do you think is going to happen when thousands of gun owners fail to register their hundreds of thousands of affected guns? Logical course of action to me seems like the ATF would seize bound books and try to track down these gun owners to do some arrests and confiscations.

While writing this post, I remembered that not so long ago, the ATF started going crazy with making dealers report anyone that buys multiple guns.

Logical course of action to me seems like the ATF would seize bound books and try to track down these gun owners to do some arrests and confiscations.

The dealers bound book is one reason why I hate buying from an FFL dealer. I am a law abiding citizen, and have absolutely no criminal record, but it is the business of NO ONE how many guns I own, or what caliber they are. similarly, I tend to make cash transactions when buying ammo and accessories. In every country where gun confiscation has happened, it all started with registration which began with purchase records.

As for Feinstenis AWB, I honestly believe that it very well may pass. The NRA can (and has) been bought and sold just like any other organization, and while they always come out and scream "No Compromise", in the end, they will make concessions that are bad for the detriment to gun owners. They decry their "victory" over the gun grabbers, because they didn't let them take everything that they wanted. In the end, we will lose a little more of our freedom, and that will become the new status quo, just in time for the next round of constitutional infringements. That is how we went from "Shall not infringe" to "shall not infringe unless we say".

The problem is that everyone is concerned about their own little pet projects, and nothing else. we say "keep your hands off of my guns", but then we are more than ready to allow the government to infringe on the rights of others when we don't have a personal stake in the situation. Supporters of the drug legalization, Internet privacy, free speech, gay marriage, etc.; are all extremely passionate about their own rights, but don't care about the rights that the other groups are fighting for. That is how they keep us separate and splintered, and that is how they continue to steal our rights away from us.

Imagine if each of these advocacy groups came together, each supporting the rights of the others. It will never happen, because if it did, you would see real and honest change in this country.

Re: Feinsteins AWB proposal

That's what I've been talking about when I say that the republican vs democrat bull is the biggest threat to this nation.

Look at what happened with OWS, their rights were trampled. But that's okay, they're dirty filthy commies and hippies.

Then there were the anonymous protests. The ones where they actually took up arms so to speak. They were protesting rights violations. But they're horrible bad people, so off with their heads! I'm not saying they weren't, it's not really that so much as people just couldn't see the good through all the bad.

That's what I've been talking about when I say that the republican vs democrat bull is the biggest threat to this nation.

Look at what happened with OWS, their rights were trampled. But that's okay, they're dirty filthy commies and hippies.

Then there were the anonymous protests. The ones where they actually took up arms so to speak. They were protesting rights violations. But they're horrible bad people, so off with their heads! I'm not saying they weren't, it's not really that so much as people just couldn't see the good through all the bad.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

From what I saw of the OWS protesters, many wanted "Free stuff", which leads me to conclude that they weren't a liberty minded organization. As for Anonymous, I am a firm supporter of many of the actions taken under that umbrella.

I also support free speech, even the unpopular kind. I might not agree with you, but you have every right to say what you wish. I support a free and open internet. I support drug legalization. I support gay marriage and dozens of other causes. Why? Simple. I support liberty.

Does it really matter if you don't agree with what they were protesting for? Their rights were sill trampled.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

No, it doesn't matter if I agree, as long as they are protesting for liberty. But at the same time, many of their demands had nothing to do with rights being trampled on, but instead with what they could get from the gov. The government has nothing, and likewise can give nothing, that they don't first steal from someone else.

-I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
-Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet. Marine General James Mattis,

If it get bad enough, I'll bury my guns and pretend I lost them. I highly doubt any major gun control bill will pass, but if one does it will be temporary similar to the first AWB.

If Obama/congress pushes a outright ban like they want they cross that line of no return in the sand. Its going to get people killed on both sides.

Last edited by zack991; 12-31-2012 at 04:56 PM.

-I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
-Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet. Marine General James Mattis,

...and so the plan may be to apply the "Slow-Boiling Frog" concept and go for increasingly repressive laws slowly over a long period of time?

Starting with the AWB renewal?

Of course, the NEXT President could change things -- unless it's another Democrat (which is increasingly likely as time goes on due to the growing base of liberal voters (aided by increased immigration of Hispanics who mostly vote Democrat -- as do 99% of blacks). I mean if Obama getting re-elected wasn't a HUGE clue re: that trend I don't know what is.

The Republican Party seems to be in decline and the Libertarian Party isn't large enough (numbers) to take its place to keep the Democrats in check.